Official Languages Committee on June 20th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 28 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Today's meeting is in a hybrid format. Members will attend in person or with the Zoom application.

In light of the recommendations from health authorities regarding the pandemic, all those attending the meeting in person should follow the directives of the Board of Internal Economy. I thank the members in advance for their co‑operation.

Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me. Note that we may need to suspend for a few minutes, as we need to ensure that all members are able to participate fully.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming its study of Bill C‑13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

I would now like to welcome the first witnesses.

Today we have Linda Cardinal, Associate Vice-Rector of Research at the Université de l’Ontario français, and Stéphanie Chouinard, Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Royal Military College of Canada and Queen's University.

Welcome, ladies.

The meeting will be somewhat shortened as a result of the voting. You nevertheless have five minutes for your opening statements. Then we will begin the first round of questions.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are participating in the meeting by video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute your mike. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute to prevent echoing in the room.

As previously mentioned, you will be allowed a maximum of five minutes.

We will begin with Linda Cardinal.

[Linda Cardinal, Associate Vice-Rector of Research, Université de l’Ontario français, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages and colleagues, good afternoon to you all.

Thank you for this invitation to present my analysis of Bill C‑13. Since I believe you have received my brief, I will skip immediately to my conclusions.

There are significant deficiencies in the way official languages are managed across the country. One need only think of the problems government employees encounter working in French in the federal public service, the various processes for appointments to positions where French-language proficiency is of secondary importance and the Canadian government's failures in francophone immigration, particularly regarding international francophone students. I believe that Bill C‑13 could help meet these challenges and that the next phase will be to prepare regulations, directives and programs for its implementation. For these reasons, I encourage you to pass Bill C‑13 without delay.

In my presentation, I would also like to draw to your attention a few administrative recommendations, including proposals for essential measures to assist in implementing Bill C‑13. These recommendations are designed to institutionalize official languages leadership to a greater degree within the federal government.

Before discussing my recommendations, I would note that, for nearly five years now, all government and non-government actors have worked toward modernizing the Official Languages Act. The bill before you represents a reasonable compromise among all stakeholders. It includes necessary and realistic objectives for advancing official languages, including French, across the country. For example, it acknowledges the vulnerability of French, the necessity of francophone immigration targets and the use of French as a scientific language. It could help bring about the cultural change needed within the federal government by providing support for the French language and the francophonie.

However, we can't wait for a perfect statute before changing official languages culture across the country. As Machiavelli would have it, no law will ever deliver us completely from differences of opinion.

Furthermore, government employees, not members of Parliament, will do the work of implementing Bill C‑13. They must be given realistic objectives with which to do their work. As I said earlier, they will be responsible for developing regulations, tools and programs in order to alter practices on the ground. This is why I oppose the idea, proposed by certain stakeholders, of housing a central agency in the Treasury Board. In my opinion, that proposal runs counter to the rules of the federal government. The coordination mechanism proposed in the bill is more reasonable and realistic. The Treasury Board can't deliver programs, and it can't have authority over the policies and programs of other departments, but it can verify and monitor the administrative requirements of the other departments.

Such a major transfer of responsibility for official languages to the Treasury Board would delay implementation of Bill C‑13 and even block it in certain instances, given the natural disinclination within a large organization to welcome change. Instead, I hope that the departments, including Canadian Heritage, the Treasury Board Secretariat, Justice Canada, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Statistics Canada, the Privy Council Office and Employment and Social Development Canada, in particular, its work program, will continue co‑operating to establish a coordination and accountability framework for the implementation of Bill C‑13. Based on the action plan, the Canadian government can also establish timelines, a calendar for implementing its objectives and measurable targets.

I recommend striking an official languages and francophonie committee within cabinet whose role would be to establish a mechanism for consulting the ministers who have responsibilities for official languages and the francophonie, to convey clear directives to those persons with respect to federal-provincial agreements and to review the process for appointing bilingual persons to executive positions.

Bill C‑13 includes realistic and reasonable targets and strikes a reasonable balance between the principles of formal and substantive equality, principles that the francophone minority communities have long demanded, particularly recognition of the vulnerability of French as an official language relative to English and the importance of giving the Official Languages Act a restorative character in addition to confirming the principle of substantive equality.

The reference to the principle of substantive equality in Bill C‑13 confirms that the advancement of equality between English and French in Canada includes the use of differentiated means, particularly in order to meet the needs of the minorities…

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I apologize for interrupting, Ms. Cardinal, but please conclude your presentation.

[Linda Cardinal]

Of course.

To sum up, I propose that the Canadian government intervene in immigration in particular. More specifically, I recommend that it introduce a francophone immigration program, distinct from other immigration programs, in which the spaces allotted to that program would be included.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you very much, Ms. Cardinal.

Ms. Chouinard, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Stéphanie Chouinard, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada and Department of Political Studies, Queen's University, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee and colleagues.

Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today.

Many of you have heard me speak in previous consultations on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, an important project that should enjoy multipartisan support but that, for many reasons, has been mishandled for the past five years.

I have also written on the subject in newspapers and news magazines across the country in recent years. For the members of the committee, I have sent the clerk a short press review in which I explore in greater depth a number of aspects of the former Bill C‑32 and Bill C‑13, which I won't have time to address in my statement, such as the role of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and that of French Canadian civil diplomacy. However, I urge you to take a look at it should it interest you.

For the sake of concision, I will focus on three points this afternoon.

First, allow me to say a few words about the principle of substantive equality, which underlies many aspects of the bill.

For the first time, we now have an express legislative acknowledgement of a principle that has long been at work in official languages governance: to achieve equality between the official languages, one of them merits different support, particularly with regard to minority institutions, which play a completely different role than that performed by institutions in a majority sociolinguistic context. This is a major advance in the official language field, one that guarantees, in particular, that the legislative framework will reflect the interpretation of the Supreme Court, where this principle has been relied upon since the late 2000s.

However, there is an abiding misunderstanding in the general population of the meaning of substantive equality, judging by the reactions the bill has triggered in English Canada. There is a genuine need for public education on the meaning and implications of substantive equality to prevent the new version of the Official Languages Act from being interpreted as a mere rejection of the official and equal status of English and French. I think there's an urgent need for clarification in the current political context in order to prevent potential backlash against the French language outside Quebec.

Second, I want to note the federal government's wish to commit to enhancing opportunities for access to post-secondary education in the minority official language. For years now, this field has been in a crisis that peaked with the Laurentian University debacle in 2021. We all know how positively the vitality of our communities is affected when minority youth have a chance to pursue their studies beyond grade 12 in their own language.

The federal government commendably wishes to be part of the solution so these institutions can pull back from the edge of the abyss and at last plan for the future. However, it is critical that the federal government not release the provinces from their responsibility to invest in what is still their area of jurisdiction.

Your committee heard me discuss this topic last June, nearly one year ago to the day, during your study on federal support for minority post-secondary institutions. I felt the point was important enough for me to repeat it. In the long term, a disengagement by the provinces from minority post-secondary education could potentially mean those institutions would have to start over from scratch. We must ensure that federal government investment remains foundational.

Lastly, with regard to proposed section 44.1, which concerns francophone immigration, I find the language used in the bill disappointing. I don't think it goes far enough toward making the necessary changes to the policies and practices of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in the Canadian francophonie that are unacceptable and, in some instances, even disgraceful. We are already living with the result of nearly two decades of inadequate action in the field, and the target set in 2003 is so far from ever being met that the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada felt it had to sound the alarm this past winter. The new Official Languages Act should be decidedly more directive so it can ensure that we not only meet actually restorative targets that enable us to maintain the demographic weight of francophones outside Quebec relative to the majority society, but also that we can provide our communities with the support they need to welcome and support these newcomers appropriately.

In conclusion, despite these remarks, I would like to leave you with a final message: don't let perfection be the enemy of the good. Here we are 34 years after the last amendment of the Official Languages Act, and it is high time we saw a modernization of the act. Although it can definitely be improved, Bill C‑13 would be a major step toward securing the future of English and French in Canada.

It is my hope that, in 2022, we can leave our mark on the history of the official languages with an act that has at last been modernized and that will finally help us move forward to a future in which the two official languages are more strongly supported and defended across the country.

Thank you. I will be pleased to continue the discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Cardinal and Ms. Chouinard.

We will now begin the first round of questions. This time, each party will have six minutes, during which you may explain your positions at greater length.

I give the floor to Mr. Lehoux for six minutes.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being with us this afternoon.

My first question is for you, Ms. Cardinal. The minister appointed you to a committee that makes recommendations to her. Earlier I sensed some pressure from you to expedite the process. I find this situation a bit peculiar.

How do you view it all, Ms. Cardinal?

[Linda Cardinal]

In other words, you're asking me if I have a conflict of interest here.

I sat on the minister's expert panel on Bill C‑32, not on the panel on Bill C‑13. Don I'm no one's parrot. What I'm saying is that my impression is that Bill C‑13 is a very promising compromise that—

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

That's fine. That answers my question, Ms. Cardinal. Never mind, I'm not worried; I'm just asking questions.

Your expert panel recommended to the government that a private business should be able to opt for the federal or provincial language regime.

Should it or shouldn't it? Why would a private business be able to choose one of those two regimes?

[Linda Cardinal]

It seems to me you're referring to federally regulated private businesses in sectors such as communications, transportation, banking, agriculture and so on. However, I think the question should be put to the minister. There will be two regimes, but at the same time…

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

But I'm putting it to you, Ms. Cardinal.

How do you see it? If the answer is yes, why is that the case? If it's no, tell me why you're giving me that answer.

[Linda Cardinal]

To whom should I say yes or no? I don't understand your question.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

I'm talking about the choice given to a private business. Some businesses in my industry are concerned about this. They don't really know where to turn.

[Linda Cardinal]

I think we have an interesting case study here. Ms. Petitpas Taylor will have to talk to Ms. LeBel to determine whether to enter into an agreement with the Quebec government on all aspects pertaining to the application of the new Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act. I think that would be the best course.

If businesses choose one regime over another, that's their choice. It's a choice that's up to businesses. If you want to avoid any confusion or difficulty, it seems to me an agreement should be reached between the Quebec and federal governments. That wouldn't be done within the parameters of this act, but it could be done later through dialogue between the federal and provincial governments.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Cardinal.

Ms. Chouinard, you mentioned training problems during your presentation. I'd like you to tell us more about that aspect.

[Stéphanie Chouinard]

I imagine you want to discuss post-secondary education.

Since the committee conducted a study on post-secondary education and the underfunding of minority postsecondary institutions last summer, it's already aware of those issues. A number of post-secondary institutions, especially the Campus Saint-Jean in Alberta, the Université de Moncton in New Brunswick andmore recently, Université Laurentienne in Ontario, sounded the alarm a few years ago when some 60 French-language programs were cut. I believe more than 100 of my colleagues were unceremoniously shown the door.

As you know, in the wording of part VII of this bill, the federal government commits to supporting minority and bilingual institutions. I think that's an important issue. The federal government can definitely provide foundational support to those institutions. However, it's important that the provinces not disengage entirely from this area, which it is still their jurisdiction.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Is Bill C‑13 missing provisions on language clauses?

[Stéphanie Chouinard]

It's not necessarily missing any in the text of the bill itself. We'll mainly have to see what comes later. The federal government can definitely make commitments in a piece of legislation. I think that's commendable. However, it's when the act is implemented that we'll have to ensure that the provinces are still partners and that they don't just let the federal government make all the decisions on the financial support granted to those institutions.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have 20 seconds left, Mr. Lehoux.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

With regard to French as the common language of work, you've written that Bill C‑13 would transfer responsibility for implementing those rights to workers or their unions. Would you please explain that at greater length?

[Stéphanie Chouinard]

I don't think I wrote that.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That will be all for the moment, Mr. Lehoux.

Arielle Kayabaga will ask the next questions.

You have the floor for six minutes, Ms. Kayabaga.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to thank the witnesses who are here today.

I'd like to tell Ms. Cardinal that I was at the opening of the Université de l'Ontario français. As a Franco-Ontarian, I was proud to see that. Thank you for being here today.

I'll start with you, Ms. Cardinal.

You discussed francophone immigration, which is an issue. We want to increase the levels of francophone immigration to Canada, particularly outside Quebec. As we all know, most of the francophones in the world live in Africa. Given that context, what other recommendations would you add with regard to Bill C‑13?

[Linda Cardinal]

Thank you very much for your question, and congratulations on your election.

I don't recommend that the government add anything to the bill. I want it to be passed as soon as possible because the longer we wait, the faster the communities decline. In other words, the longer you delay its adoption, the more the francophone communities decline. We have to act every day if we want to avoid declining. That's my general message.

However, a distinct francophone integration program has to be established. I mentioned a francophone economic immigration program in my brief, but that's a mistake. The immigration policy provides for an economic immigration program and programs for specific immigrant classes. So I don't see whwe couldn't do the same thing for the Canadian francophonie: establish a francophone integration program distinct from all other programs. The spaces allocated to that program would be included in the plan for immigration levels, and the program should be part of the forthcoming policy. That's essential.

We could introduce pilot projects, decide to set targets that are less ambitious at t federal level but very ambitious locally in places such as Moncton, Ottawa, Toronto and Saint-Boniface. We could also establish pilot projects with teams that would oversee the ongoing development of those programs in targeted regions.

There is one thing we mustn't overlook, and we've discussed it with you on numerous occasions: first, we have to consider how to align this policy with others. I'm thinking in particular of the general immigration policy and foreign affairs policy. We lack chancelleries, embassies and staff on the ground in Africa. We only have one office for all Africans wishing to come to Canada to study, among other things. We have to expand our services. I'm not the only person requesting this. People are asking for the same thing in other sectors where people work in international relations. We have to increase the number of opportunities offered to people who want to apply to come to Canada, particularly as international students. There is one single office, and it's located in Dakar. It may not be enough, particularly when we know that people come from across Africa. And Paris isn't the place where African students can file their applications either.

So this is quite an important aspect. We must establish ambitious targets. We need to reach for the sky on this and ensure that the francophone immigration policy is harmonized with all other issues. Canada will thus be able to meet its francophone immigration objectives, particularly with regard to students.

We have a basic contradiction right now. We ultimately want African francophones who come to study in Canada to help offset our labour shortage, but, at the same time, we tell them they have to return to their country immediately after completing their education. We impose all kinds of restrictions and then tell them they can come and study here if ever Canada might be part of their career plans. So there are some major policy contradictions here.